My FiveFingers

A fan site all about Minimalist Running, Barefoot running, and Healthy Living!

Join the Community

Search

Kicking Style with Vibram Substance

by Scott Reslow » on Aug 16, 2011 2

Looking at Brian’s face, I saw that he was digesting what I had just explained to him.

“They did what now?”

Explaining situations to Brian was sometimes a chore.  He was a Marine who did a tour in Iraq.  He liked things black and white.  He liked things clear.  To him, it either made sense or the statement was rejected back to the speaker for further clarification.  I tried again…

“The U.S. Army has chosen to not allow Vibram Five Fingers to be worn by their populace during PT, claiming that it does not look professional.”

Another face by Brian meant that he got it this time, but was not satisfied with the information.

“You know what, Rez?  That is stupid!  Those funny shoes you wear are outstanding.  I can’t wait to get a pair of my own.  Things that work, and are functional, should not be rejected because of style.  You know what I’m trying to say?”

Oh I did…

A member of the Special Forces jumping out of a plane with military dog. Notice the FiveFingers.

In the last two years, I’ve had great interest in the style versus substance debate.  I see it being the number one issue in the country today.  From politics (which has had this problem for a long time now) to the sports world, style versus substance has crept to the front of discussion.  It’s emergence as the top problem (maybe not for others, but it’s definitely what I see) is a troubling barometer of where the country is and is going.  I hope it’s temporary, but, to be honest, I fear the worst.

It started with the NBA (I’m going to stick with just the sports world here).  They broke through first.  Toward the end of Michael Jordan’s reign as the best basketball player on the planet (and some argue he still is), the battleground around the league began to change.  Players were not staying in school anymore; they were jumping to the pros from high school at an alarming rate.  This led to more players with athleticism, but no real basketball IQ.  Slowly, the game watered down.  Then there was Allen Iverson…

Allan Iverson’s emergence as one of the top players in the league was the catalyst that propelled the league toward basketball erosion.  The man was talented, no questions there.  He was also selfish, and hard to watch for the basketball purist.  Everyone was out to get him, or so he thought.  He was a small guy playing in a big man’s game, and he reveled in chopping those big guys down to size.  Accolade after accolade was anointed to him.  For a solid five year span, it was Allen Iverson’s league.

Problem was, he wasn’t that good.  Don’t get me wrong, he was a talented player, especially for his size.  His shooting percentage was terrible, though.  The brand of basketball he played was incredibly self serving.  He’d drop 30 points on a 15% shooting night, meaning he shot the ball probably close to 50 times.  Meanwhile in that same game his teammates would get the ball four times all night.  The running joke was that anyone who was on his team was only there to make sure that the team met the minimum requirements of players needed to be on the floor for the game to count.

The NBA, in all it’s wisdom, made the fateful decision to ride Iverson.  The league forever changed (Oddly enough, before the current strike, the NBA had been making a solid effort to reclaim prior Iverson basketball conditions).  Also, a chunk of the U.S. armor fell to the floor…

There had been guys like Iverson littered across the sports world for as long as athletics had been conceived.  They were mostly thrown to the scrap heap early, though.  What coach would want a player, even a talented player, that was so selfish that the rest of the team was physically agitated playing with him?  During the 40s through the 70s, no coach would put up with that  (I do recognize that during the 70’s the NBA almost died due to selfish play, racism, and drug use.  If it were not for Larry and Magic bringing substance back to the game, this article might have been about football).  Heck, even the fans would disagree with that selfish style of play, see the 1970’s and the near fatal blow of major fan retreat.  I know, I know, there were exceptions, but not many.  Not like today.

Iverson was unique, though.  The down and outer could relate to him.  Small and aggressive, defiant and reckless, were all traits that people could see in themselves.  Those tall, gigantic players who ruled the roost and always kept the little guys from being at the party…  Those millionaires who wouldn’t acknowledge our existence and made the rules to fit them…  We pay their salaries and they don’t care about us…  Go get em!  Show em Allan!  Do it!  Do it to them all…

He never quite did enough, though, did he?  Moments, yes, but never enough to warrant the attitude.  Never enough to justify opening the flood gates for the me-first era.  However, that’s exactly what happened.  Not on purpose I’m sure.  A person like Iverson doesn’t view things outside his own scope, I would think.  At the time, however, he was the money maker.  Not many could move product like Allan Iverson in the 90’s!

Therein lies the issue.  The issue that has been running wild ever since.  Money for style, not substance.  Iverson represented a style, and attitude, that made some coin.  At what cost, though?  The game is littered with high priced, low performance athletes.  Hell, the entire sports landscape is cluttered with athletes collected outrageous cash for limited performance!

Worse yet, it’s everywhere!  Politics, don’t get me started.  Schools, from elementary to college, have issues with style over substance that make my brain hurt on a daily basis.  It goes on and on.  It’s why I firmly think that the U.S. Army is really just out of line with it’s declaration of no Vibrams at all.  Our men and women in the service are adults, can realize that addressing their superior officer in a dress setting does not require the Five Fingers, and should be able to wear the shoes that allow them to complete their duties to the best of their abilities.   You can’t tell me that wearing Vibram Five Fingers limits, or impedes, any military movement or function.

The Fingers work.  Let them be used by all!  And if we start there, perhaps we can get on the road to letting substance kick style down a peg in all aspects of the country.

p.s. Please someone fix the NBA!

Submitted Comments

  1. Nathaniel says:

    Great article. God creates us without shoes on, and we’ve really messed it up. The ironic thing is, Five Fingers are stylish and they just keep getting more stylish. The look really good and Vibram is doing a great job with the styling. I can only imagine that the Five Fingers would be a best friend to a military gu or gal. Super lightweight, takes up little room in a pack. You could take 5-6 pair in your pack and use less room than combat boots, and not near as heavy. I am shocked that the military would frown on these, as they’ve never been one to be politically correct, which is one of many reasons I like our military, besides the obvious protection they provide and freedom to weary Five Fingers. Thanks again or the article.

  2. Richie Gurdler says:

    On our base where I work as a Medic in the Australian Army, a ruling has recently come out in base standing orders that, and get this:

    “Finger-five” style of shoes are excluded (for use during PT)

    For a start, they couldn’t even spell it properly which leads me to think they have next to no idea what they’re talking about! I’ve made a couple routine enquiries at the lower rank levels and have hit brick walls, I’m going to continue taking it progressively higher as I’ve heard from other VFF’s users in the Army that this is becoming a growing trend among other bases; to ban the use of the footwear we know and love for what appears to be no good reason.

    Now I may only be a Private but I’m also an Advanced Medical Technician and if I need to push the medical case forward as to why soldiers should be allowed to use footwear which will ultimately enable them to become more effective in combat, then I’m not going to hold any stops. I’m sick of the minority under-informed military hierarchy believe they know what is better for the enlightened majority in restricting something which is clearly functional, just because it looks a little different. I get the feeling it is simply the ‘old blood’ remaining ignorant and fearing what they don’t understand; something the ‘new blood’ tend to take up with greater ease.

    I’ll let y’all know how I go, if y’all are interested ;)

    – Richie

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.